So I thought the Canon XC10 would be all by itself for a while in the 1 inch-type 4k "grab and go" DSLR - styled (sorta) fixed lens camcorder market. However, it looks like Sony is not going to allow that to happen. In fact, Sony has dropped a nuclear bomb on that idea!

I was thinking of grabbing a XC10 for fun but now I'm rethinking that and now looking at Sony's RX10-II. Here is what I see:

RX10-II has....

A FAST zoom lens...

A faster constant aperture f2.8 Zeiss lens. It stays f2.8 across the entire zoom range while the Canon XC10 slows down to f5.6 on the long end. (Why did Canon choose this lens?) Sony even gave the RX10-II THREE internal ND filters!! Focus AND smooth turning Iris lens ring, An actual "ring" instead of a "dial" on the body....Holy smoke!

A higher resolution "stacked" sensor...

20MP sensor that uses 14mp in a 16x9 UHD video crop. It supposedly scans every pixel, over-samples it's image and scales it down to UHD.(roughly 8MP) This delivers extremely high detail UHD quality. About 7,000 green pixels, 3,500 red pixels and 3,500 blue pixels! The Canon XC 10 appears to have a 1:1 pixel read out in UHD. A little over 4,000 green, 2,000 red and 2,000 blue. The Sony RX10-II red, blue and green channels are all SIGNIFICANTLY higher resolution than the XC10's. Hell, the RX10's green channel ALONE is already approaching UHD resolution. It's not far from double that of the XC10's green channel resolution. (ouch!)

High speed frame rates..
.
The Sony RX10-II does several high speed frame rates ( 960 fps, 480 fps, 240 fps) at different resolutions and different qualities...WOW!

Allot more, like ....

Built in flash
Low cost SDXC cards instead of expensive CFast cards.
100Mbp/s XAVC instead of 305Mbp/s UHD codec. (the XC10 does not offer lower long GOP rates and 305Mbp/s INTRA in UHD is actually pretty low)
S-LOG-2 to match Canon's C-LOG
Beautiful OLED (real) viewfinder.
$1,200 CHEAPER than the XC10.

I think that Sony has attacked the Canon XC10 very hard with the RX10-II. Sony must REALLY want to own this market segment. I just don't see Canon being able to justify the $2,500 price tag for a small 1 inch-type sensor camcorder. If Canon keeps that price up with the RX10-II out there, it's just going to be dead on arrival. I suspect that when the RX10-II hits the streets, we will see 10 comparison videos by August on YouTube that all show the RX10-II being the clear winner. (just guessing here folks)

Yes, I know it's too early to say. I get it. I just have a feeling in my gut that the XC10 is going to get spanked next month...and spanked pretty hard at that.

Well?...time will tell. Maybe?...maybe not?.

One thing the RX10-II does not have is a "Canon" logo on it. I suppose that accounts for something in itself today. Maybe that will justify the extra $1,200??

My the best man win....

I agree with Cliff that on paper the the Sony RX10-II trumps the Canon XC10 but having been lucky enough to have had a good play around with the Canon offering I would hold judgement on which camera is suitable for which situation.

The Canon XC10 is half the weight of the Sony RX10 11 (strange they are both number 10 models?) and I feel that many Cinema Eos owners will find it compliments their cameras very well with its broadcast quality file format and higher bit rate - it provides 4.2.2 8 bit recording at either 200 or 300 mbs. It's very easy to set up with a menu structure that will be very familiar to those with a C100 or C300.

Its very easy to use and will produce professional quality stills and video for those that don't want to drill down through complex menu structures.

But I'm going to try both cameras out before making my decision.

Yes folks new SONY just nock out the Canon xc10,we have CANON 5D2 and 60D,and honestly for my weddings event I want to simplify my work(changing lenses and limit zoom for close up ) with not so expensive BRIDGE CAMERA like this new Sony,woooo TECHNOLOGY is going to fassstttt,yes even we just have to forget about the size of the new cameras to impress the client when doing a wedding work,this was maybe 10 years ago,the world in changing to, so welcome more and more little new cameras,and remember is not what the camera do,is what we can do with the camera !!

The best Franklin

The Canon XC10 is half the weight of the Sony RX10 11 ...


The lighter weight of the Canon XC10 is likely a byproduct of the slower and hence lighter lens. On top of that, the Sony camera has an EVF.

Maybe that is Canon's secret weapon. They used a slower lens because it was lighter. Sony went faster with constant f2.8 and must now pay the "heavier" price. Plus, Sony makes the RX10-II out of magnesium instead of plastic. Another "weight" strike against Sony.

Maybe Canon's XC10 lighter weight advantage will be what people will all want in the end?

Just a thought here but am I right in thinking that file recording on the Sony RX10 ( and 11) is limited to 29 minutes?

In the UK they used to have this limit so that a device wouldn't be classified as a 'camcorder' because attracted a different tax levy.

If this is the case it would limit the cameras role as a B Cam in certain live situations such as filming presentations or conferences. The workaround would be use an external recorder such as the Atamos Shogun.

The recording limit on the Canon XC10 is governed by the size of the card one is using whether one is recording 4K or 1080p etc.

I'm not sure where we're getting that the Xc10 is a lighter camera than the RX10. Canon lists the Xc10 at 2.1 lbs, although imaging resource lists it as 36oz with batteries --- either of which is a bit heavier than Sony's stated 1.79 lbs with batteries. (having held both, I'd say the XC10 is quite noticeably heavier and larger.)

I think the primary difference between these cameras is intent. The RX10 is a still camera a relatively advanced video feature set, but a consumer grade codec (100mbs in 4k). I've never really loved the video quality off my version 1 RX10...but the stills are great and I use this camera surprisingly a lot on jobs where I don't need the resolution (or weight) of my hasselblad. The XC10 is a true video camera with a professional 4k codec, and with proper venting of the sensor. It's still capabilities are decent, but nothing to write home about. Essentially these two cameras are bridge concepts with opposite points of view.

Frankly, the lens choice on the XC-10 mystifies me (mostly because the comparisons with the RX10 are so obvious), but for the audience this camera is intended for (bloggers, drone pilots), I think the lens isn't that big of a weakness. Frankly, playing with the prototype at NAB and at other events, I didn't find myself in love with this camera. It doesn't have the usual canon polish in terms of ergonomics and experience, and the snap on viewfinder is...welll...interesting....to put in mildly. From the samples I've seen, I'm not as enamored with the color either. If once the final version hits, the color proves to be a closer match to the new C300, I could see this as a gimbal or B camera...or something for handing off to an assistant for BTS...but that's about it.

I'm not sure where we're getting that the Xc10 is a lighter camera than the RX10. Canon lists the Xc10 at 2.1 lbs, although imaging resource lists it as 36oz with batteries --- either of which is a bit heavier than Sony's stated 1.79 lbs with batteries. (having held both, I'd say the XC10 is quite noticeably heavier and larger.)


Yep - Apologies, I got that absolutely wrong! I got confused between imperial and metric weights. And a good summary of the potential usage of the two cameras.

I'm not sure where we're getting that the Xc10 is a lighter camera than the RX10. Canon lists the Xc10 at 2.1 lbs, although imaging resource lists it as 36oz with batteries --- either of which is a bit heavier than Sony's stated 1.79 lbs with batteries. (having held both, I'd say the XC10 is quite noticeably heavier and larger.)

I think the primary difference between these cameras is intent. The RX10 is a still camera a relatively advanced video feature set, but a consumer grade codec (100mbs in 4k). I've never really loved the video quality off my version 1 RX10...but the stills are great and I use this camera surprisingly a lot on jobs where I don't need the resolution (or weight) of my hasselblad. The XC10 is a true video camera with a professional 4k codec, and with proper venting of the sensor. It's still capabilities are decent, but nothing to write home about. Essentially these two cameras are bridge concepts with opposite points of view.

Frankly, the lens choice on the XC-10 mystifies me (mostly because the comparisons with the RX10 are so obvious), but for the audience this camera is intended for (bloggers, drone pilots), I think the lens isn't that big of a weakness. Frankly, playing with the prototype at NAB and at other events, I didn't find myself in love with this camera. It doesn't have the usual canon polish in terms of ergonomics and experience, and the snap on viewfinder is...welll...interesting....to put in mildly. From the samples I've seen, I'm not as enamored with the color either. If once the final version hits, the color proves to be a closer match to the new C300, I could see this as a gimbal or B camera...or something for handing off to an assistant for BTS...but that's about it.

Yes, the RX10-II's 29 minute limitation is actually something that saves the XC10. The RX10-II really cant be used for long form recording unless you have an external recorder to beat the time limit.

Ironically, the $1,200 that you save when buying and RX10-II allows you to buy a 4k ProRes recorder like the 5 inch PIX 5E with 400 to 800Mbp/s. (Not to mention, tons of focus and exposure tools with 3 scopes to boot)

Canon chose an odd "305Mbp/s" bitrate for this Intra-codec. I need to dig deeper into what it uses. (H.264 Intra profile?" If Canon did a long GOP codec at 150Mbp/s, that would have really captured 99.99% of what these small, 1 inch-type sensors can see. And for that? SDXC cards would have easily recorded that. (JVC does it on SDXC with no problems)

ProRes LT (light) starts at 400+Mbps, so Canon's 305Mbp/s is about 100Mbp/s less.

I think in the end, image sensor quality, lens quality, noise and the amount of resolution both camera produce will probably be the biggest selling factors. Usability and ergonomics will be a distant second.....no, "price" will be #2...ergonomics and usability and codec will be #3.

p.s....that RX10's silky smooth iris ring on it's Zeiss lens really makes it that much more tempting.

The RX10-II doesn't have a headphone jack and an external mic needs an optional hot shoe device. I'd consider that a bigger disadvantage than a 29 minute recording limit.

If this is correct that would be step down from the Rx10.

Sony web site shows headphone jack and 3.5 mini mic input.
Ken

Sony web site shows headphone jack and 3.5 mini mic input.
Ken

Yes, just had a look, it shows them. :)

Sony web site shows headphone jack and 3.5 mini mic input.
Ken

My mistake.. thanks for correcting.

Yeah, it has full manual level control too with real audio meters.

I need to check the XC10 to see if has 3 ND filters. The RX10-II does.

Canon literature mentions a single density ND filter.

Mark

For those interested in exploring the functionality of the Canon XC10 it is now possible to download the camera manual.

XC10 - Canon UK (http://www.canon.co.uk/support/consumer_products/products/digital_cinema/digital_cinema_camera/xc10.aspx?type=manuals)

How much of a usability hit does the LCD take when shooting Canon Log?

I've read that Canon's Cinema line has a "View Assist" mode for their screens, which I'm assuming applies a display-only LUT. If the XC10 doesn't similarly compensate, will the LCD turn to milk?

There's no mention of this in the manual (thanks for that link, Mark.)

How much of a usability hit does the LCD take when shooting Canon Log?

I've read that Canon's Cinema line has a "View Assist" mode for their screens, which I'm assuming applies a display-only LUT. If the XC10 doesn't similarly compensate, will the LCD turn to milk?

There's no mention of this in the manual (thanks for that link, Mark.)

It looks like the camera does not have the view assist function, but I don't see this as that much of a problem. Canon cinema mode, or c-log generally looks fine on the monitor....it certainly isn't that colorful, but at least on the c300, the LCD isn't particularly accurate in terms of color with it in view assist and other CP gammas either. I believe the XC10 has a better LCD than what is on the C300....and if it's the one from the C300 mark ii, then it's vastly superior. Regardless, when viewing LOG..the monitor is fine (I prefer seeing the full range of the signal than a tweaked one anyway.

It looks like the camera does not have the view assist function, but I don't see this as that much of a problem. Canon cinema mode, or c-log generally looks fine on the monitor....it certainly isn't that colorful, but at least on the c300, the LCD isn't particularly accurate in terms of color with it in view assist and other CP gammas either. I believe the XC10 has a better LCD than what is on the C300....and if it's the one from the C300 mark ii, then it's vastly superior. Regardless, when viewing LOG..the monitor is fine (I prefer seeing the full range of the signal than a tweaked one anyway.

That's reassuring. Thanks.

My only experience shooting log is with the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera. And the screen on that thing is a bit, well, challenging.

Yes, the RX10-II's 29 minute limitation is actually something that saves the XC10. The RX10-II really cant be used for long form recording unless you have an external recorder to beat the time limit.

Ironically, the $1,200 that you save when buying and RX10-II allows you to buy a 4k ProRes recorder like the 5 inch PIX 5E with 400 to 800Mbp/s. (Not to mention, tons of focus and exposure tools with 3 scopes to boot)


I do not understand why the camera manufacturers burden their worldwide camera distribution with this silly European 30-minute time limit. We here in the US don't face a tax burden on a video camera. Why limit all of the world's cameras to the time limitation? I'm guessing the cameras are quite capable of recording video for over 30 minutes at a time.
Make a European version and a different world version, without the worthless and annoying 30 minute record limitation.
I'm sorry for our EU members, but there's no reason the rest of us should suffer from this idiotic tax.

I've been doing my best to follow Canon's developments when it comes to 4k. They are very late to the party and I'm afraid this XC10 isn't helping matters. Just looking at the price difference between the RX10-II and the XC10, I find it baffling that Canon can't do (or rather doesn't do) 4k for much cheaper. The GH4 is significantly cheaper than the XC10 as well (and that's a year old, correct?)

I'm a Canon fanboy most of the time, and have spent a lot of time shooting with the C100 recently, but can't figure out why Canon chooses to wait on 4k? I personally don't need 4k, but when shooting a wedding (my primary source of income) it is great to be able to crop to 150% or even 200% without any loss in image quality, and when it is as cheap as the GH4 or the new RX10, what is holding Canon back? I mean, even my samsung galaxy S5 has 4k video (crappy 4k but still).

Woah!...Just took my new RX10-II for a 30 min spin. The new stacked 1 inch-type sensor has NO rolling shutter in 4k!!...it's GONE! Woah! SLOG-2 looks fantastic, highlight handling is a HUGE improvement....dynamic range is EASILY way better than previous 1inch-type models with SLOG-2 turned on. (rec 709 highlights seems the same as previous 1inch-type)

The high speed frame rates are spectacular for a cheap $1,300 camera.

This thing is a little MONSTER!

I've been doing my best to follow Canon's developments when it comes to 4k. They are very late to the party and I'm afraid this XC10 isn't helping matters. Just looking at the price difference between the RX10-II and the XC10, I find it baffling that Canon can't do (or rather doesn't do) 4k for much cheaper. The GH4 is significantly cheaper than the XC10 as well (and that's a year old, correct?)

I'm a Canon fanboy most of the time, and have spent a lot of time shooting with the C100 recently, but can't figure out why Canon chooses to wait on 4k? I personally don't need 4k, but when shooting a wedding (my primary source of income) it is great to be able to crop to 150% or even 200% without any loss in image quality, and when it is as cheap as the GH4 or the new RX10, what is holding Canon back? I mean, even my samsung galaxy S5 has 4k video (crappy 4k but still).

I know how you feel. My first point & shoot was a Canon PowerShot I bought in 2002. I tend to like the way Canon does things, button layout and non-proprietary media. I got my first dSLR around 2006, a Canon XTi. So, now 9 years later I have a lot of Canon gear, including a good number of L lenses. But since Canon is not into 4K or high frame rates, which I am interested in, I am playing the field and getting what works for me regardless of brand. It hurts to consider going over to Nikon for their 36 MP cameras because I'd have to get all new glass, so I haven't done that. But with these fixed lens cameras, there's not a huge investment in brand-exclusive accessories. I really love my Sony FDR-AX100. Got it for the high frame rate and have really taken a liking to the 4K as well. Now there are two more cameras I'm looking at, the Sony FS7 and the soon to be released Ursa Mini. Canon makes their decisions, I make mine and spend my money on what does the job I want it to, regardless of brand. You being a pro, I'd suggest looking at the Sony X70. Once you see what you can do with 4K, I think you'll be hooked.

Mark

While here, the XC10 is gebasht, I have been working for months with it, and you can work with it excellent. Even in a few hire with the RX10 II
No comparison in the quality of Aufnahmen..die Xc has a super codec and beautiful colors much better handling. The price is in the meantime already fallen.
So instead of complaining works;-)

and now with sony's a6300 announcement, i wonder how either the xc10 or rx10mk2 will hold up.

ymmv

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions

Yes folks new SONY just nock out the Canon xc10,we have CANON 5D2 and 60D, . . . The best Franklin

Personally I like the look of the Sony RX100 footage and the form factor and price says I can get two of them for the price of any kind of DSLR look alike. I'm debating between the XC10 and Sony AX33 or anything else that will give me awesome stills and video at a very reasonable price point. I love that I could pack the RX100 in my pocket too.

. . . Canon chose an odd "305Mbp/s" bitrate for this Intra-codec. I need to dig deeper into what it uses. (H.264 Intra profile?" If Canon did a long GOP codec at 150Mbp/s, that would have really captured 99.99% of what these small, 1 inch-type sensors can see. And for that? SDXC cards would have easily recorded that. (JVC does it on SDXC with no problems) . . .

The CFast cards are also a consideration for me as I am considering the XC10. In fact, for the price of a CFast 64 or 128 GB x3500 card, I can buy a 1TB super fast external USB3 SSD which I'd much prefer over some card that sits around most of the time doing nuttin' :-(

I received a post that pointed me towards this article by Adam Wilt here on DVINFO.net.

Review: Canon XC10 1? 4K hybrid compact camera/camcorder (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/review-canon-xc10-1-4k-hybrid-compact-cameracamcorder.html)

Surprised I hadn't seen it earlier but it is the most comprehensive review and appraisal of the Canon XC10 that I've seen.

Truly excellent, pros and cons, read for anyone considering buying the XC10. But it didn't make me regret my decision to very rapidly switch to the Sony RX10-11. The excellent viewfinder, the lens and Slo-mo being streaks ahead. Shame as there are many things I really loved about the Canon XC10.

... 305Mbp/s INTRA in UHD is actually pretty low...

No, it isn't. Sony F5 has the same bitrate for UltraHD at 25p FPS.

Has anyone updated the firmware in the XC10? Are there any noticeable performance improvements?